The Wychford Poisoning Case by Anthony Berkeley
Well… this turned out to be a bit of an odd one! Goes to show, I suppose, that you should never approach a book with expectations or preconceptions. I was inordinately excited to stumble across this Golden Age Roger Sheringham adventure in the charity shop, as Berkeley titles very rarely turn up – so it came off the TBR pile very quickly. However, I have to say that there were elements of the book that made me quite uncomfortable… more of which later on.
I have, of course, read several Berkeley titles and rated them very highly; he’s one of the Golden Age authors regarded as having been very unjustly neglected, and in particular for “The Poisoned Chocolates Case”, which twists the genre quite wonderfully. He also wrote as Francis Iles and produced the lauded “Malice Aforethought”, so I think I had every right to expect high standards. “Wychford” was his second Sheringham title, first published in 1926, and a fascinating, if unusual read.
The book opens with our detective, Roger Sheringham, visiting his old friend Alexander Grierson and his recently-aquired wife Barbara. Sheringham, a best-selling novelist, is presented here as something of a silly-ass detective in the Wimsey mould – I recall him being like that from the later books, though it’s more pronounced in this story. Roger has become fascinated by the Wychford Poisoning Case, which is all over the news, and has strong views. A Mr. Bentley has died from arsenic and his beautiful French widow is suspected by all and likely to be tried and hanged. However, Sheringham has his doubts; the crime seems too obvious, if the murderer *is* Mrs. Bentley then she has made no attempts at concealment, and much of the case rests on circumstantial evidence and blind prejudice.
Fortunately for Roger, his friend Alec (Alex, Alexander, whatever) has cousins living in Wychford, and after a detour to obtain spurious credentials as reporters, the pair head off to investigate. Their hosts, the Purefoys, are an accepting family, allowing the detectives to come and go and cause havoc as much as they like, while interrogating Dr. Purefoy about the actions of various poisons. Roger vamps various locals to try and find out more about the Bentleys; Sheila Purefoy, a very modern ‘flapper’ and the daughter of the family, joins in with the detecting, and Sheringham gets to pontificate about real-life criminals, reasons for killing and the psychology of a crime. There’s a lot of humour, but also in places quite a lot of common sense, and Sheringham (and presumably his creator) is often very realistic about the foibles of human nature.
The plot itself twists and turns nicely, with just about everybody who was in contact with the dead man coming under suspicion. And the resolution, if a little low-key, was unexpected and not something I think I would ever have deduced. Some of the detecting takes place off-camera and is just reported, and there is perhaps the sense that Berkeley was more interested in showing Sheringham propounding his philosophy as opposed to actually doing the legwork – although the scene where he interrogates a suspect after getting him drunk was great fun. But lor’ can that man spout verbiage! Sheringham could talk the hind leg off a donkey, and I found most of his banter very, very funny; however, I can imagine it might irritate some, which could account for his slipping out of favour.
In only his second outing, Sheringham comes across as very assured and a fully formed detecting character. The 1920s saw a slew of crime novels and amateur sleuths, and as the introduction to this volume points out, many of them drew from the character of Philip Trent from E.C. Bentley’s seminal “Trent’s Last Case”. I did wonder, therefore, if the naming of the murdered man and his wife was a little homage! In fact, there is plenty of name-dropping; the book is dedicated to E.M. Delafield, an author well-known to Virago readers, and there is reference also to F. Tennyson Jesse. Real-life cases get a number of mentions, in particular the Thompson/Bywaters case, which inspired the latter author’s “A Pin To See The Peepshow” (one of my favourite Viragos, a really powerful book) and also Delafield’s “Messalina of the Suburbs”. The book is often digressive in a fascinating way, with regular discussion the psychology of murder – not surprising, I suppose, from a work subtitled ‘An Essay in Criminology’!
OK – so having dispensed with the fun of the plot and of following the mystery through to a satisfying end, let’s get on to the oddities…. Firstly, there is Roger Sheringham’s attitude to women. Berkeley allows him a substantial number of pages in the book to state his thoughts about women and they’re not flattering, to say the least, with our protagonist of the opinion that most women have no brains and aren’t worth the time of day. He’s allowed so many pages of such outrageous pontificating about this that I began to think perhaps Berkeley wasn’t serious; and certainly his women characters *do* have quite a lot of variety, from the clingingly vampish Mrs. Saunderson, to the austere Mrs. Allen, the sensible Mrs. Purefoy and her daughter Sheila, who is allowed to display a serious amount of intelligence.
However, talk of Sheila must lead us to the big issue of the book. Sheila is 18 and a modern woman, apt to pose a little and be mouthy. However, when uncle Alec decides she’s getting too full of herself, he holds her down and spanks her – yes, really, and with her parents in complete collusion. This very uncomfortable, bizarre and frankly embarrassing scenario is repeated or threatened at points throughout the book and sits very, very strangely within the story. What *was* the author thinking of? Was this common behaviour in 1926?? And if so, thank goodness for the women’s movement…
I ended the book having really enjoyed the mystery, but was left feeling very unsettled by the attitudes to women. There’s some real inconsistency here – at times, I suspected Berkeley was allowing Sheringham rope to hang himself and letting him protest to much; and certainly Roger does refer to the fact that the love of his life is married to someone else, so there is a tragedy lurking which could account for his bitterness. Berkeley also allows Roger to flirt with Sheila and appear saddened when she finds herself a young admirer, so the temptation to regard the attitudes as either not seriously held, or at least not held by the author, is there, bumped up a little by the inconsistency. Nevertheless, this retrograde aspect of the book *was* unsettling and detracted in places for me, despite the fact that I normally make allowances for the fact that older books display the attitudes of their time. And it wasn’t the spanking per se that bothered me, but the contempt it expressed for women and the attitude that they should jolly well know their place and if they didn’t it was up to a man to put them back in it – that really riled me, to be honest.
However, I do intend to keep reading Berkeley, despite my reservations with this one, because Roger Sheringham is an engaging detective despite his faults, and I like the way that Berkeley plays about with the genre (and so early in its life, too). I’d like to track down his first book, just to get a bit more background about Sheringham and how he sprang into being, so to speak – and it will be interesting to see if there are any dodgy elements in that one too!! =:o
icewineanne
Oct 03, 2017 @ 07:58:53
An excellent review. I was born in the early 60’s and my father spanked me whenever he felt I was getting too full of myself. He was born in 1922, and it was acceptable & even encouraged when he grew up. So relieved that times have changed.
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 03, 2017 @ 10:33:42
Thank you. And yes – thank goodness times have changed. This really was a bit of a shocker in places!
madamebibilophile
Oct 03, 2017 @ 08:06:38
Excellent review Karen. I remember seeing some films from the 50s and 60s had grown women being spanked without consent – horrible. I assumed it was there to tittilate the audience when these things had to be presented more covertly by film makers, but maybe it was just more common then.
I also try and make allowances when reading golden age crime, but I did find Sergeant Cluff Stands Firm really annoying in that every female character had her breasts described – I think I now know author Gil North’s preferences! Otherwise it was a good novel 😀
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 03, 2017 @ 10:36:01
It’s the lack of the consent and the incredible arrogance and bullying which is so shocking – the assumption that any male can decide what’s appropriate behaviour for an 18 year old female and then enforce it in this way. If two consenting adults want to get into spanking, that’s their business, but this sat very uncomfortably in a Golden Age Crime Novel – I wondered if I’d strayed into 50 Shades territory! =:o
As for Sgt Cluff, that’s one I haven’t read – so thank you for the advance warning…..
Liz Dexter
Oct 03, 2017 @ 08:34:51
Oh dear, that does sound a bizarre and unpleasant interpolation into the plot. What a shame!
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 03, 2017 @ 10:36:26
It *was* unsettling and unexpected – especially as I usually enjoy Berkeley’s work!
Gilt and Dust
Oct 03, 2017 @ 09:01:19
I can see why that would make you uncomfortable and yet also why you would continue to seek out his work. What a lucky find as well. I don’t think I have ever seen any of his books when rummaging around bookshops.
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 03, 2017 @ 10:36:56
They don’t turn up often, which is why I snapped this one up. I might be able to guess why it was donated…..
Sarah
Oct 03, 2017 @ 10:51:30
When blatant misogyny or rascism crop up in older books I try and remember to see that as a reflection of the times, but it can be hard to stomach. As someone who remembers being smacked as a child, I particularly loathe physical punishment in any form, but the spanking of an adult woman is not only unacceptably violent, but infantilising and utterly humiliating. I do love golden age crime, but this one I shall make a note to avoid!
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 03, 2017 @ 11:36:30
I’m usually the same and I make exceptions – but this was just too much. It *did* make me very uncomfortable!
buriedinprint
Oct 03, 2017 @ 14:50:10
Yikes! This seems far beyond the matter of corporal punishment being more/less acceptable in terms of parenting (spoken as a step-parent with more than a decade’s experience debating the matter with the children’s other home, in which they do practice corporal punishment, which we do not hold with – it still is acceptable in some circles). In this story, the young woman is 18 years old and on the cusp of marrying (presumably, given the surrounding social milieu), and in the context of the talk you’ve described, this seems purely misogynistic (and as though her husband would simply adopt the uncle’s role if she were married). If it is a matter of the author depicting the times, that’s one thing; if he holds those views himself, I’m not sure I’d choose to engage with his writing again, given how many other good books are waiting for their turn. It’s simply vile and there are plenty of other talented tale-spinners! Thoroughly enjoyed reading your review and your reflections and your debating of the matter!
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 03, 2017 @ 15:46:12
It’s tricky and I admit that I’m still pondering on whether I *do* actually want to read more of Berkeley. I’ve rated him highly in the past, yet I recall having slight moral qualms about the murder victim in “Dead Mrs. Stratton” and I’m starting to wonder if there might have been a strand of misogyny running through his books – less blatant than this, perhaps, but still there. And that blurring between the author depicting and the author believing was I think something which again made me uneasy. Certainly it’s made me rethink his work….
Café Society
Oct 03, 2017 @ 15:40:15
You have more tolerance than I do. Any author, from whatever age, who condones spanking an eighteen year old woman is one I would feel best avoided.
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 03, 2017 @ 15:47:20
Well, as I said, I’m kind of reappraising my viewpoint on Berkeley and looking back at the other books I’ve read again. I’m tempted to try another early one to see if the tendencies are there, and if so I may have to abandon him completely.
Izzy
Oct 03, 2017 @ 17:52:06
Ooh, I’m *so* glad I’m reading Cyril Hare’s Tragedy at Law, with its wonderful, brilliant, strong-minded Hilda Barber who runs rings around her husband and most other men !
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 03, 2017 @ 21:51:48
Note to self – check out that Hare book like you were going to……😏
heavenali
Oct 03, 2017 @ 19:57:27
Great review, it does sound a really inventive mystery (as does the poisoned Chocolate mystery which I have seen reviewed elsewhere). But I think that attitude to women would really put me off.
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 03, 2017 @ 21:50:13
That’s the trouble – Berkeley is a really clever writer, but this stuff is getting in the way!
Lady Fancifull
Oct 03, 2017 @ 22:28:43
I loved the Poisoned Chocolates (I rather think you might have been the one to nudge me to that, but I think I’ll give this one a miss!
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 04, 2017 @ 06:46:48
That was a wonderful book, definitely – this has moments but it certainly isn’t up to the standard of his later one…
Elle
Oct 03, 2017 @ 23:28:44
Urgh. I know there have been several really good pieces (mostly in the genre-critic community, but not always) about having favourite authors who are also seriously problematic, and how best to read them—might be worth Googling. (I think including the search term “problematic faves” might turn something up; that particular phrase is often used or referred to.)
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 04, 2017 @ 06:46:07
Thanks – I may take a look, because I love Berkeley’s plotting and his take on the whole crime thing, but this has undermined things a bit…
Elle
Oct 04, 2017 @ 14:31:18
Yeah, those kinds of pieces are really useful resources, or they have been for me.
JacquiWine
Oct 04, 2017 @ 08:14:10
Oh dear…I think I’m with Ali on this one. The mystery elements sound interesting and enjoyable, but the author’s approach to women would put me off. While I do try to make allowances for the prevailing attitudes of the day, I think there are times when certain writers overstep the mark. It sounds as though that was the case here.
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 04, 2017 @ 16:14:18
I struggled with this one more than I have with the unfortunate elements in some books – as you say, I think the author definitely overstepped the mark here.
Cavershamragu
Oct 06, 2017 @ 13:22:38
I am always unsure about Berkeley – he was clever and innovative but because Sheringham was initially conceived as a spoof sleuth (try saying that in a hurry), I am never sure if I am finding him as annoying as I am supposed to or if the passage of time is betraying the author and his intentions …
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 06, 2017 @ 13:41:12
That’s interesting – I’m not actually sure I knew that Berkeley intending him as a spoof but that makes a kind of sense because he does tend to use Sheringham as a prop to hang his theories on. I thought he was intended to be a silly ass but certainly he seemed more so in this book and I’m starting to wonder now if Berkeley knew exactly what he wanted to do with Sheringham or where he wanted to position him. Intriguing…
Cavershamragu
Oct 06, 2017 @ 23:14:17
In his first case, POISONED CHOCOLATES, the joke is that gets it wrong. But you can do that in a one-off but in a series not so much …
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 07, 2017 @ 14:09:16
Yes – I’m wondering if he *was* a bit of a one-trick pony…
Cavershamragu
Oct 08, 2017 @ 17:40:03
The books he wrote as ‘Francis Iles’ were certainly important and influential in their day. But too long since I’ve read them to be able to comment sensibly though …
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 08, 2017 @ 18:47:55
Likewise – though I do have at least one of the Iles books lurking in the stacks. The jury’s out on Berkeley for now, I think…
Dark Puss
Oct 07, 2017 @ 21:43:02
Now you know why I think the “Golden Age” is made of iron pyrite.
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 08, 2017 @ 11:07:09
🤣🤣🤣 that made laugh a lot – once I’d looked it up…. (I’m very non-scientific!)
shoshibookblog
Oct 08, 2017 @ 21:03:05
I recently read ‘The Golden Age of Murder’ which mentions Berkeley’s ‘interest’ in spanking … think I’ll be sticking to Sayers for the time being but I look forward to hearing if you read any other of his books that might be more fun escapism and less objectionable 😐
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 09, 2017 @ 09:12:28
Ooo-er – so it wasn’t a one-off… That’s made me nervous of reading any more. I didn’t realise he was a serial spanker!!
shoshibookblog
Oct 10, 2017 @ 19:48:14
That was certainly the impression I got from ‘The Golden Age’; for obvious reasons, I haven’t yet devoted a lot of time to investigating how accurate it is …
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 10, 2017 @ 20:08:06
Not sure I will either…
Max Cairnduff
Oct 11, 2017 @ 15:20:25
Hm. The thing is even if the pontificating on women is intended to satirise the character rather than to reflect authorial views if there’s too much of it and it’s too heavy handed it doesn’t really matter does it? Satire’s tricky stuff, and it sounds like here this either just plain isn’t a satirical element but just sexist or it is satirical but doesn’t come off so ends up sexist anyway.
The spanking bit, god, I’d forgotten but this used to come up sometimes in some 1960s/early ’70s SF too and since I read some retro SF as a teenager I remember encountering it and finding it quite uncomfortable. It always felt a bit like I was reading the author’s fantasies rather than something which arose naturally from the story (which in the case of Heinlein is quite possibly the case).
As mentioned above you saw it sometimes in movies too. I do note though that the common link in the depiction of it was men – male authors, male directors. I don’t recall any works by women in which a grown (if young) woman is spanked against her will and this is seen as fun and harmless.
Anyway, since golden crime isn’t my genre anyway I think this is a definite miss. Madamebibliophile has also rather put me off Sergeant Cluff Stands Firm – a title which now seems somewhat ominous given what she says of the text.
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 11, 2017 @ 15:55:56
Yeah – if it’s intended as satirical it fails, and the more I think about it, the more I doubt it. I’ve had a little look online to see what people are saying about Berkeley and the implication is that these were his personal views and that he did rather approve of the spanking so that *has* had an effect on whether I want to read any more of his books.
As you say, this is coming from a male viewpoint – and it’s the element of control that bugs me the most. The jury is getting closer to a decision on Berkeley, I feel, and I also don’t think I’ll go near Sgt. Cluff….
Max Cairnduff
Oct 11, 2017 @ 16:08:14
The thing about describing female characters’ breasts is a surprisingly common flaw. I seem to recall Le Carre doing it, Philip K Dick goes there, and there’s tons of others I can’t immediately recall.
It’s as if the writer, always male, thinks it’s a key descriptor like say hair colour or expression or clothing (none of which are remotely universally key either of course). Something essential to allow the reader to imagine the character. In a noir with a femme fatale I can see how detailing a “knockout figure” or whatever actually might be relevant. Otherwise though, most of the time not so much.
I’ve seen female writers go there but from recollection that was typically the character themselves considering their own body from a self-consciousness perspective (which is a very different thing) and it wasn’t just that one detail.
Apparently Cluff is otherwise a good book as I recall.
kaggsysbookishramblings
Oct 11, 2017 @ 16:14:48
Well, absolutely – I’m sick to death of seeing women defined by the size of their chests (which are there to feed babies, btw…) Yes, in a certain kind of stylised writing the description might be relevant (though I would like to see similar criteria applied to men – or actually, would I? Might be a little reductionist as I prefer my characters well-rounded – not physically, I hasten to add). The sixties and seventies, much vaunted times for liberation, actually had much that was negative from a women’s point of view – under the banner of liberation for all and anything goes, women actually became even more sex objects which led to the women’s movement – but that’s another story!!!
“It was getting boring to me, said Roger…” #murderinthebasement @BL_Publishing @medwardsbooks | Kaggsy's Bookish Ramblings
Feb 16, 2022 @ 07:02:40
The amorality of Roger Sheringham… @BL_Publishing @medwardsbooks #jumpingjenny | Kaggsy's Bookish Ramblings
Mar 22, 2022 @ 07:01:01